Baptism

The Lord thy God shows a multitude of mercies unto them that keep his Commandments.

1. EXCEPT a man be born of the water, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.1 16 words,58 letters.1. The language, “born of water,” as found in this Law, and in the discourse of Jesus to Nicodemus, is sufficient to settle the controversy as to the manner in which baptism should be administered.2. For a birth is a coming forth out of something that covers and conceals. Such is baptism, only when the subject, being covered in water, is brought forth out of it.3. It would be folly in the extreme to say of one, upon whom a few drops of water had been sprinkled, or a small quantity poured, that he was born of the water. It cannot even be said that he is sprinkled, or poured. It is the water that is sprinkled, or poured.4. Nor can any one say that this language, “born of the water,” was not used of baptism. For if baptism is not the thing here spoken of, then there is another ceremony to be administered in water, besides baptism, so entirely essential that without it no one can enter into the Kingdom.5. And that other ceremony would also be baptism; that is, an immersion in water. For as no one can dispute that, it is necessary to be born of water, in order to enter into the

[1 John iii, 5.

[Page 117]

Kingdom, so, whether baptism is or is not an immersion, nevertheless, immersion is essential to entry into the Kingdom.6. This discourse of Jesus with Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, has given a further key to the manner of administering baptism. He reproached Nicodemus for not understanding what it was to be born again.7. Why that reproach? Because the Jews were at that time making considerable numbers of converts to their faith, all of whom were baptized; and they always spoke of this baptism as a new birth.8. Maimonides, one of the most distinguished of the old writers on Jewish theology, after relating that proselytes were received into the Jewish faith, males by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice; and females by baptism and sacrifice, adds, “A Gentile who has become a proselyte, and a slave who is set at liberty, (on embracing the faith,) are both, as it were, new born babes; which is the reason why those who before were their parents are now no longer so.” (Clarke’s Fleury, B. iv, ch. i, p. 273.) Hence a master in Israel could not be ignorant how a man should be born a second time.9. Baptism was most clearly treated as regeneration, or a new birth, by Jesus, during his ministry. He said to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, “Ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. xix, 28.)10. In what had the twelve Apostles followed? The regeneration. What is regeneration? Butterworth says: “Re- generation, is the change and renovation of the soul, by the spirit and grace of God. (John iii, 5, 6.) It is called the new birth, and consists in the infusion of spiritual life into the soul, (John v, 25,) whereby it is capable of performing spiritual

[Page 118]

actions, and living unto God. (Rom. xiv, 3.” But. Con.)11. Buck says: “Regeneration, a new birth; that work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a change of heart. It is to be distinguished from baptism, which is an external rite, though some have confounded them together. The evidences of it are, conviction of sin, holy sorrow, deep humility, knowledge, faith, repentance, love, and devotedness to God’s glory.” (Bucks Th. Dic., p. 395.)12. These are standard writers of Protestant theology, and their definitions express the doctrine of most Protestant sects. But they are irreconcilable with the teaching of Jesus.13. For if regeneration is a change of heart, evidenced by conviction of sin, and repentance, as Buck says; if, with Butterworth, it is a change and renovation of the soul; how could he undergo that change? how could he be convicted of sin, and repent, who was without sin? (Heb. iv, 15. vii, 26.)14. The language of Jesus, “ye who have followed me in the regeneration,” just as truly implies that he whom they followed was regenerated, as that they who followed were. And as he who was without sin, could not repent and turn from sin, and was nevertheless regenerate, so repenting and turning from sin, is not regeneration.15. The change of heart or turning from sin to holiness, which has been mistaken for regeneration, is in the gospel denominated repentance, and is a prerequisite to baptism, without which no one, once in sin, can become regenerate.16. In this view of the matter, Paul spoke of the baptism of water as the washing of regeneration, and that of the Spirit as the receiving of the Holy Spirit, shed abundantly on us through Jesus Christ. (Tit. iii, 5, 6.)

2. But no man may have baptism of water,

[Page 119]

except such as have faith toward God,1 and come unto him through the ministry he has sent; repenting of evil deeds,2 and seeking to learn righteousness by the living word:3 for this is the door of all into the kingdom;4 from eight years old and upwards; through which if ye enter not, ye shall not see God.5 65 words,267 letters.

1. To be a lawful candidate for baptism, it is necessary to have faith toward God, and to repent of all sin. Without these prerequisites, baptism will avail nothing.2. Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Heb. xi, 6.) This faith does not consist merely in believing in the existence of God. It is necessary to believe in actual communion with him; in the language of Paul, that he is the rewarder of those who seek him. (id.)3. In sending out the Apostles to preach the gospel in all the world, Jesus gave them this promise, “He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.” (Mark xvi, 16.) Believeth what? The word preached. Thus belief is a prerequisite to baptism.4. So Philip taught the eunuch of Ethiopia, when he inquired of him why he could not be baptized. “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” (Acts viii, 37.)5. But faith toward God will not alone qualify one to receive baptism. It is equally necessary to repent of all sin, whether of action, word, or thought.6. The Apostles, when they received their commission to

preach the gospel in all the world, were sent to preach repentance, and the remission of sins, (Luke xxiv, 47.)7. Very soon after receiving this mission, when Peter was inquired of by his congregation what they should do, (to be saved,) he replied, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts ii, 38.)8. This repentance is that conversion, or change of heart, of which the sects so often speak under the name of regeneration; their errour being chiefly this, that they think that to be regeneration, which in fact is its necessary prerequisite.9. But baptism will be unavailing, if it is not administered by those duly authorized of God. The doctrine of the Roman Catholick Church, that it may be administered, not only by a Priest, but by a layman, a woman, or an infidel; and that it will be valid, so the intention is right, is absurd.10. For, baptism is the sacrament by which and in which sins are remitted, and unauthorized Priests, laymen, women and infidels have no authority to remit sins.11. This doctrine is made very plain in the gospel. The authority conferred on the Apostles by Jesus, was to go into all the world, preaching repentance and the remission of sins to every creature; (Luke xxiv, 47, 48;) witnessing unto them, he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned; (Mark xvi, 16;) and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. xxviii, 19.)12. The reason of this rule is plain. For sin is an offence against God. He being the party wronged, has the right to forgive or to withhold forgiveness.13. Nothing is clearer, therefore, than that he has the right to prescribe the conditions on which he will forgive sin, and the

[Page 121]

manner in which he will do it, and to confer the authority to grant the remission, upon whomsoever he will; and that no man can validly exercise that authority, except he that is duly authorized of God.14. All sects substantially admit the soundness of this rule, by confining the administration of the rite, under ordinary circumstances, to those whom they regard as God’s Ministers. Their occasional aberrations from the rule grow out of the defects and innate follies of their various systems of theology.15. Nor is there any other door into the Kingdom, by which men may enter. Children under eight years old, are not subjects of baptism, because at that tender age there is not a foundation for intellectual responsibility. If made liable for the consequences of their conduct, they have not the intelligence to so act that their conduct shall be the counterpart of their intentions.16. But the sole fact of their freedom from the stain of actual sin, does not authorize them to enter the Kingdom by any other door; for Jesus was without sin, (Heb. iv, 15,) and yet it was necessary for him to be baptized. (Matt. iii, 13-16. Mark i, 9. Luke iii, 21.)17. Not pursuing these special cases any farther, the general rule is so clearly laid down, that no one can come into the Kingdom, except through valid, authorized baptism, that it is only a matter of surprise that any believer of the gospel should have ever doubted it. Nor is it possible that any who has faith in the gospel should be in doubt on the subject, after reading the testimonies in God’s word.

3. For the keys of the ministry of the remission of sins, in the sacrament of baptism, hath the Lord your God bestowed upon his

[Page 122]

Apostles;1 and through them, upon their fellow labourers, the High Priests, Elders, and Priests; commanding them to preach repentance and remission of sins, to all nations throughout the earth.252 words,255 letters.Total—3 sec., 133 words, 580 letters.

1. The keys of authority to baptize for the remission of sins belongs to the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedek, in all its grades. Priests of the Aaronick order are also authorized to baptize for the remission of sins.2. John the Baptist was of the Aaronick Priesthood. Yet his principal ministry was in preaching repentance and baptism for the remission of sins; that is, the baptism of repentance. (Matt. iii, 1-3. Mark i, 4. Luke iii, 3.)3. And when Jesus gave the Apostles the plenary authority, in all cases throughout the earth (Matt. xxviii, 18) to remit and retain sins, (John xx, 23,) their first use of the power in behalf of new converts was in the washing of regeneration, or baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts ii, 38.)

NOTE I.—THE MANNER OF BAPTISM.

1. A most singular and uncalled for controversy exists among Christians, as to the manner of baptism, there being three rites or forms in use, each of which is offered as a valid manner, to wit: immersing the subject in water, pouring water upon him, and sprinkling a few drops on him.2. The Greek Church, which uses the New Testament in the language in which it was written, has always practised

[1 John xx, 23. [2 Luke xxiv, 47.

[Page 123]

immersion, and denies that the members of the Latin or Roman Church are Christians, because they are unbaptized.3. The oldest Church edifices in Europe, both in Protestant, Greek and Romanist countries, are provided with baptismal founts for the immersion of adults; and it is matter of undisputed history, that sprinkling and pouring were not used until quite modern times, except on the plea that the health of the subject would not admit of immersion.4. Romanists, among whom sprinkling and pouring originated, justify it, not by Apostolick institution, but by the authority of the Church to change forms and ceremonies.5. It is not a little singular that Protestants, who deny all authority of the Church over the sacraments, and claim that the Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice, should follow the Romanists in that for which they claim no warrant from the Bible, and justify under the authority of Romish Councils.6. But nearly all Protestants do so follow the canons of the Church of Rome. The Methodists have carried the folly farther, by leaving the question of the manner to be determined by the subject. (Discipline, ch. i, sec. xxi, 1. ch. iii, sec. ii, pp. 103, 109, edition of New York, 1836.)7. And this folly is practised by numerous other sects, though it carries with it the scandalous admission that the ministers of those sects are not capable of instructing their converts in religious ceremonies, but need to be instructed and guided by them.8. If three manners had been originally instituted, the Minister of God, rather than a new convert, would be the proper person to judge which was appropriate to the occasion. And if one mode was instituted, and that had fallen into doubt, it is ridiculous that the solution of that doubt should be re-

[Page 124]

ferred to one not yet inducted into the Church, rather than a Minister of God’s Law.9. But it is nowhere pretended that more than one mode of baptism was originally instituted; and among those who are acquainted with early Church history, and the Greek language, no pretence is made that the mode was other than immersion.10. Romanists, who instituted other forms, admit unhesitatingly that they rest on the authority of the Church, and not on warrant of Scripture.11. The apparent doubt which hangs over the subject in the English language, grows out of the fact that the Scriptures have never been duly translated.12. The English version of the Bible was made by sprinklers; not baptizers. When they came to the words rendered in English, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, (Mark xvi, 16,) they translated all but one word. The word, “baptistheis,” they did not translate. To have done so would have decided the controversy in favour of the Baptists. They Anglicised it into the word “baptized,” and thus left the controversy where they found it.13. These translators, when the sacrament of baptism was not involved, found no difficulty in translating the same word. Translating the Old Testament, not from the original tongue, as the title page represents, but from the Septuagint, they made no difficulty in translating “and Naaman went down and dipped himself seven times in Jordan;” rendering “ebap-tisato” “dipped.”14. In the Greek language this sacrament is always named by the word “baptizo,” which invariably signifies “immersion;” whatever cavillers may say to the contrary, when they have an audience who do not read Greek. Of numerous ex-

[Page 125]

amples, the following, selected from the classicks, will be satisfactory:15. “But when the sun had dipped himself (Greek, baptized himself) into the flood of the ocean, and the dark shining moon lead in the stormy night, then went forth the war-like men who dwelt in the northern mountains.”—Orpheus.16. “When a piece of iron is taken red hot from the fire, and is dipped (Gr., baptized) in water, the heat, being quenched by the peculiar nature of the water, ceases.”—Heraclides Ponticus.17. Polybius, describing a naval engagement between the Romans and Carthaginians, in which the latter were defeated, says that “on account of the weight of the vessels, and the unskilfulness of the rowers, they sunk (Gr., baptized) many of them.”18. In relating the siege of Syracuse, he says: “The greater part of their vessels being sunk (Gr., baptized) they were filled with consternation.” In speaking of the naval engagement between Philip and Attalus, which happened near Chios, he says: “Attalus seeing one of his quinqueremes (galleys with five oars in a seat) sunk (Gr., baptized) by one of the enemy’s vessels,” &c.19. “As when one dips (Gr., baptizes) the vessel into the fountain of water.”—The Greek Scholiast on Euripides.20. “The crow often dips (Gr., baptizes) herself from the head to the top of the shoulders in the river.”—The Greek Scholiast on Artus.21. “And I plunging (Gr., baptizing) you in the waves of the sea, will destroy you in the briny surges.”—Alcibides in Jacob’s Anthol.22. “Finding Cupid among the flowers, I caught him and

[Page 126]

plunged (Gr., baptized) him into wine, and drank him up.”—Anacreon, in his Ode on Love in the Heart.23. Aesop, in his fable of the Ape and the Dolphin, relates that the dolphin having generously undertaken to carry an ape ashore, who had been unfortunately wrecked at sea, became vexed with him for telling him a falsehood, and sinking (Gr., baptizing) him, “killed him;” that is, he plunged him under the water, till he was drowned. In the fable of the Shepherd and the Sea, he says: “The vessel being in danger of being sunk,” (Gr., baptized,) &c.24. Diodorus Siculus, speaking of the sudden swelling of the Nile, says: “Many of the land animals are overtaken by the river, and being sunk (Gr., baptized) perish.”25. In another place he says: “The Admiral’s ship being sunk, (Gr., baptized,) the armament was thrown into great confusion.” In another he says: “The river rushing down with a violent current, sunk (Gr., baptized) many and destroyed them.”26. Baptizo always denotes a total immersion. If only a part of a thing be immersed, still it is an entire immersion of that part, and the context limits its extent. Thus, Polybius says: “The foot soldiers passed through, (the water,) scarcely immersed (Gr., baptized) to the paps.”27. The Fathers of the Protestant Reformation, and the most learned Protestant Divines, have admitted, contrary to their practice, that immersion is the proper form of baptism.28. Thus Calvin, though he contends that “whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance,” yet says, in the same section, “The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; and it is

[Page 127]

certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.” (Institutes, Book iv, ch. xv, sec. 19.)29. “Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly covered. And although it is almost wholly abolished, (for they do not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them,) they ought, nevertheless to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out; for that the etymology of the word seems to demand.”—Luther.30. “Christ commanded us to be baptized; by which word it is certain, immersion is signified. Baptizesthai, in this place, is more than niptein; because that seems to respect the whole body, this only the hands. Nor does Baptizein, signify to wash, except by consequence; for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake of dying. To be baptized in water, signifies no other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism. Baptizo differs from the verb dunai, which signifies to plunge in the deep and to drown.” —Beza, (on Mark vii. 4.)31. “The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and his Apostles.”—Vitringa.32. “Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified.”—Hospinianus.33. “To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, to dip; and baptism is immersion, dipping. Baptismos en Pneumati agio, baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit; for he on whom the Holy Spirit is poured out, is, as it were, immersed into him. Baptismos en puri, ‘baptism in fire,’ is a figurative expression, and signifies casting into a flame, which, like water, flows far and wide; such as the flame that consumed Jerusalem.

[Page 128]

The thing commanded by our Lord is baptism; immersion into water.”—Gurtlerus.34. “The words Baptizein and Baptismos, are not to be interpreted of aspersions, but always of immersion.”—Buddeus.35. “Baptism is immersion, and was administered in former times, according to the force and meaning of the word.”—Salmasius.36. “The word Baptizein, to baptize, is nowhere used in the Scripture for sprinkling.”—Venema.37. Professor Fritsche, a disciple of Hermann, (in his Com. on Matt. iii, 6,) says: “Baptism was performed, not by sprinkling, but by immersion; this is evident, not only from the nature of the word, but from Rom. vi, 4.”38. “The word baptism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, &c.; and the choice of the expression betrays an age in which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced.”—Augusti.39. “The word corresponds in signification with the German word taufen, to sink into the deep.”—Brenner.40. “Baptism is perfectly identical with our word immersion or submersion, (tauchen oder untertauchen.) If immersion under water is for the purpose of cleansing, or washing, then the word means cleansing or washing.”—Free Inquiry respecting Baptism, Leipsic, 1802.41. Again, “The baptism of John, and that of the Apostles, were performed in precisely the same way; that is, the candidate was completely immersed under water.” Speaking of Rom. vi, 4, and Gal. iii, 27, it says: “What becomes of all these beautiful images, when, as at the present day, baptism is administered by pouring or sprinkling ?”—id.42. “An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. This is the meaning of the word.” “In the word Bap-

[Page 129]

tizo and Baptisma is contained the idea of a complete immersion under water; at least, so is Baptisma in the New Testament.”—Bretschneider.43. “The word baptize signifies in Greek, sometimes to immerse, sometimes to submerge.”—Paullus Com.44. “Baptism consists in the immersion of the whole body in water.”—Scholz, on Matt. iii, 6.45. Professor Lange, on Infant Baptism, says: “Baptism, in the Apostolick age, was a proper baptism; the immersion of the body in water. As Christ died, so we die (to sin) with him in baptism. The body is, as it were, buried under water--is dead with Christ; the plunging under water represents death, and raising out of it the resurrection to a new life. A more striking symbol could not be chosen.”46. Bloomfield, in his Critical Digest on Rom. vi, 4, says: “There is here plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian Churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystick sense of baptism.”47. Rosenmuller (on this passage,) says: “Immersion in the water of baptism and coming forth out of it, was a symbol of a person’s renouncing his former life, and, on the contrary, beginning a new one. The learned have rightly reminded us that on account of this emblematical meaning of baptism, the rite of immersion ought to have been retained in the Christian Church.”48. Neander, in his letter to Judd, says: “As to your question on the original rite of baptism, there can be no doubt whatever that in the primitive times, it was performed by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the new principle

[Page 130]

of the divine life which was to be imparted by the Messiah.”—Judd’s Reply to Stuart.49. Dr. Knapp, an eminent and pious German divine, speaking of the passage in question, says: “We are, like Christ, buried as dead persons by baptism, and should arise, like him, to a new life.” “The image is taken here from baptized persons, as they were immerged, (buried,) and as they emerged, (rose again.”)50. John Wesley, on Rom. vi, 4, says: “Buried with him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.”51. “It being so expressly declared here, Rom. vi, 4, and Col. ii, 12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism by being buried under water; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the author of this institution, or any license from any council of the Church, being that which the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity; it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in case of the clinick, or in present danger of death.”—Whitby.52. “Anciently those who were baptized put off their garments, which signified the putting off the body of sin, and were immersed and buried in water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life. And to these customs the Apostle alludes, when he says: ‘How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his

[Page 131]

death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism.”—Archbishop Tillotson.53. Chrysostom proves the resurrection from the Apostolick mode of baptism, as follows: “Our being baptized and immerged in the water, and our rising again out of it, is a symbol of our descending into hell or the grave, and of our returning from them.”—Chrys. Hom.54. “In the time of the Apostles, the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had ordered, and, to express more fully his change of character, generally assumed a new name. The immersion of the whole body was omitted only in the case of the sick, who could not leave their beds. In this case sprinkling was substituted, which was called clinick baptism. The Greek Church, as well as the schismaticks in the east, retained the custom of immersing the whole body; but the western Church adopted, in the thirteenth century, the mode of baptism by sprinkling, which has been continued by the Protestants, Baptists only excepted.”—Edinburgh Ency. Baptism.55. The word Baptizo is still used by the Greeks, and they mock to utter scorn the absurdity of supposing that it means sprinkle or pour. They employ terms of contempt for those practices, and always immerse any members who join their Church from other Churches, where they have only received sprinkling or pouring.56. Professor Stuart says: “The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental Church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time. The members of this Church are accustomed to call the members of the Western Churches “sprinkled Christians,” by way of ridicule and contempt. They maintain that Baptizo can mean nothing but

[Page 132]

immerge, and that baptism by sprinkling is as great a solecism as immersion by sprinkling; and they claim to themselves the honour of having preserved the ancient sacred rite of the Church free from change and corruption.”—“The Mode of Baptism.”57. “The Oriental Church has not only preserved un-changed the custom of immersion, but declares it so essential that they rebaptize those who were sprinkled, and by way of contempt call them “sprinkled Christians.’ ”—Augusti.58. Walch says: “The Greeks not only immerse the candidate thrice under water, so that the water closes over his head, but consider that such a mode of baptism is essential. They reject sprinkling.”—History of Religious Controversies.59. Dr. Wall says: “The Greek Church, in all the branches of it, does still use immersion.”—History of Infant Baptism.60. Dr. Knapp, (Professor of Theology in the University of Halle,) says: “In the Greek Church they still hold to immersion. It would have been better to have adhered generally to the ancient practice, even as Luther and Calvin allowed.”61. Stourtza, a native Greek, (in a work published in 1816,) says: “Baptizo has but one signification. It signifies, literally and invariably, to plunge.”62. The Greek Patriarch, Jeremiah, says: “The ancients were not accustomed to sprinkle the candidate, but to immerse him.”—Walch’s Controversies, out of the Lutheran Church.63. Christopulos, a Greek, in his “Confession of Faith,” says: “We follow the example of the Apostles, who immersed the candidate under the water.”64. The great standard of the Greek Church is the Pedalion, (the Helm,) duly authenticated by the Patriarch and Ho-

[Page 133]

ly Synod. The Pedalion speaks thus: “We say that the baptism of the Latins (Roman Catholicks) is baptism falsely named,” (Gr., Pseudonum on Bapzisma.) Again, “The Latins are hereticks of old, specially from the very fact that they are unbaptized,” (Gr., Abaptistoi.) Again, “The more ancient Latins, the first to make innovations upon Apostolick baptism, practised pouring, (Gr., Epikusin,) that is, they poured a little water upon the crown of the child’s head. And this is still practised in some places at the present time. More, however, now, with a bunch of hogs’ bristles throw a few drops of water thrice upon the child’s forehead.” Again, “Observe, then, that we do not say, that we rebaptize (Gr., Anabaptizomen) the Latins, but that we baptize (Gr., Baptizomen) them, since their baptism (Gr., Baptisima) is a lie in its very name. It is not baptism at all, but bare sprinkling,” (Gr., Rantisma.)65. A celebrated treatise, authenticated by the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Alexandria, is called Rantismou Sleleleusis, (an exposure of sprinkling.) Here are the titles of some of the chapters:

“A Demonstration that Sprinkling is not Ancient, and that the Proofs adduced by Papists are Lies.”“Reproofs of the Fathers against Sprinkling.”“A Demonstration that the Law of the Church to admit the Latins as Baptized was made when they were accustomed to Baptize as we do. Also Witnesses from Latin Authors that Srinkling was not received then by them.”“A Demonstration that Baptism is the Command of the Lord; Sprinkling that of Satan.”“A Demonstration that Sprinkling, being Satanical, is opposed to Divine Baptism.”“A Demonstration that Sprinkling, being a Heretical Dogma, is under Anathema.”

66. If any one point is made out in theology, it is this: that Christian baptism, in the days of Christ and the Apostles, was an immersion of the whole body in water, and that

[Page 134]

there is no authority for any different mode, but the assumed power of the Roman Catholick Church to change the ordinances of God.67. And the thing made out is not that one mode of baptism is better than another; but it is that immersion only is baptism; that pouring and sprinkling are not.

NOTE II.—THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.

1. It has been already shown (post xi, 2, note, p. 119) that faith and repentance are prerequisites to baptism. These facts alone ought to put an end to all question as to whether infants are proper subjects of baptism.2. Calvin has made a most ingenious argument in favour of baptizing the children of believers, on the assumption that baptism came in place of circumcision, which was administered to infants. (Institutes, B. iv, ch. xvi.) All Pedobaptists follow him.3. It will not be necessary to trace the course of his argument, for the following reasons: 1st. Faith and repentance were not requisite to circumcision; and, therefore, if baptism was substituted for circumcision, it was upon new conditions, which excluded infancy. 2d. Circumcision was not administered upon females; therefore, if baptism was a substitute for it, females would be excluded. 3d. Circumcision was the seal of the covenant, by which Abraham and his posterity have the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession; (Gen. xvii,10-14;) and as that grant was for a thousand generations, at least, (1st Chron. xvi, 15-18. Ps. cv, 8,) the seal of circumcision has not been superseded, but must be kept by all Israel, on pain of forfeiting all share of the inheritance.4. There is another objection to Calvin’s argument, which

[Page 135]

reduces it to an absolute absurdity. If the children of believers are entitled to baptism, as a substitute, because Abraham’s children were to circumcision; then are their servants also, and all slaves bought with money or born in their houses; for all the servants of Abraham and of his posterity, whether born servants, or bought servants, were just as much entitled and required to be circumcised as his children; and this without reference to age, faith, or any other condition, except owing service to Abraham and his posterity. (Gen. xvii, 10, 11, 23, 27.)5. An attempt has been made to prove infant baptism by several New Testament cases, of the baptism of a whole household. But in no one of these cases is it mentioned that there was an infant in the house. In the present dispensation several hundred instances have occurred of baptizing a whole household; yet never a child under eight years.6. The rule may, therefore, be laid down as a safe and universal one, that believers, whose hearts are free from the love of sin, and they only are subjects of gospel baptism; and that such are truly buried with Christ in baptism, and raised, resurrected or regenerated to a new and holy life.7. Nor is it necessary to submit the question of baptism to the Church to be acted on by them. The Apostolick practice was, and now is, to baptize all of eight years old and upwards who offer themselves for baptism, professing faith toward God, and repentance of all sin. None but hypocrites, and those who come to mock the sacraments, or the Ministers of God, are refused. Nor are they delayed from night till morning, or from morning till night.8. The candidate need not be questioned as to the general soundness of his faith. It is enough that, like a little child, he be ready to learn of the Minister of God.